Address the P2 review finding on PR #1085: NO_PERMISSION is a generic
code name also returned by non-document tools — attendance
get-self-setting (bossAttendStatNotify) and event-subscription attempts
have both been observed returning it — so keying drive permission
apply-* guidance on it would mislead those products, defeating the goal
of the P1 scoping fix. Only the drive-specific forbidden.* domain codes
(forbidden.no.auth / forbidden.accessDenied) and the role-threshold
message wording remain document signals; a bare NO_PERMISSION still
classifies as AUTH_PERMISSION_DENIED but now keeps the product-neutral
suggestion, and NO_PERMISSION combined with document wording still gets
apply guidance.
Add regression tests for the non-document NO_PERMISSION case and update
the changelog fragment; changed-code coverage stays at 100%.
zengyouling.zyl
5bd0ea7c53